What did we learn
from the British Grand Prix?
Well, firstly we learned why so many
Brits come to live in Thailand. The weather! The race was
run under the usual British summer weather trio of wet, wet
and wet.
The star of the day was, without any shadow of doubt,
McLaren Mercedes’ Lewis Hamilton. He delivered a performance
the like of which we have not seen since Michael Schumacher.
By far and away the best driver there, lapping the entire
field other than the second and third place drivers. You can
ignore the pleas from the other teams that they made the
wrong decisions re tyres and statements from Ferrari that
they could have won if … On the day, Hamilton was
invincible.
The other star performance was from Ross Brawn and Rubens
Barichello. Brawn as the strategist for Honda was flawless
in his decision making, and not just in putting his drivers
on extreme wets while other teams were dithering around
selecting between old and new wet tyres. Brawn also ran wet
weather settings on the Hondas in qualifying, knowing that
the race would be wet the following day. Whilst this
compromised their qualifying position, it meant the Hondas
were set up for the wet conditions and could utilize the wet
tyres to advantage. If they had not had a refueling problem,
Barichello would have been second, not third, and drove an
excellent controlled race.
Ferrari blew it in the biggest possible way. The decision to
leave Raikkonen on worn wets is difficult to understand, and
Ferrari have admitted that it was a very poor call. Mind
you, Ferrari are known for some rather amazing strategy
decisions. Massa’s car was clearly set up stiff for dry
conditions, but it wasn’t was it? Massa has the new
Silverstone ‘spinning’ record. He’ll get a job as a DJ after
Ferrari gives him the DCM (Don’t Come Monday) award January
1 2009.
Heidfeld (BMW) may have won himself a reprieve. Looking very
much as if he would be dropped for 2009, he brought out a
vintage performance, never placing a wheel wrong, bringing
off two of the best passing maneuvers and finishing second
(albeit over a minute behind Hamilton). BMW Motor Sport
Director Mario Theissen saying after the race, “After things
have not gone his way recently, I am very happy for him.”
Kubica had a day he will want to forget.
Red Bull also blew it. Or their drivers did. After amazing
everyone with his second place in qualifying, Mark Webber
blew it on the first lap, but was missed by everyone as he
sat helplessly facing the wrong way, and then did it again
later. David Coulthard announced his retirement and then
tried for another passing ploy that was not going to come
off. End result was he came off, taking the hapless Vettel
(Toro Rosso) with him. Vettel had managed to qualify in the
top 10 again and with BMW’s door probably closed, I would
expect to see Vettel take Coulthard’s seat at Red Bull next
year.
Williams were nowhere. Nakajima was lucky to end up eighth,
and Rosberg clearly could not handle the conditions. He is
not delivering the performances that were expected of him.
He will stay at Williams for 2009, mainly because other
teams will have lost interest.
Renault was never in the hunt. Piquet showed flashes of
brilliance, but retired after spinning off, while the sulky
Spaniard was lucky to end up sixth.
Toyota? Wrong strategy decisions regarding the tyres, but
Trulli drove well to come seventh. Glock is just not making
the grade and will not be around in 2009 (unless Toyota
makes another wrong decision).
Force India drivers Fisischella and Sutil did not like the
wet conditions at all, spinning off terminally on laps 27
and 11 respectively. Team owner VJ Mallya will put more
water in their curries until they get used to racing on it.
Almost forgot Bourdais in the second Toro Rosso. Nowhere.
Forget him for 2009 as well.
Diesel cars more
expensive to run?
In all the debate about dwindling oil reserves
and alternative fuels, someone will mention diesels. These
go much further for your liter of fuel, and so should be
much more economical. That is the game plan; however, as the
song goes, “It ain’t necessarily so!”
Chevrolet
Captiva
One of the trusted motoring organizations in Australia (the
RACV) has come out with a survey to say that in their
opinion diesel cars cost more to run than their petrol
engined stablemates. The survey included 60 of the most
popular vehicles on the road Down-Under and covered all the
costs including purchase price, depreciation and running
costs such as fuel, tyres, servicing and insurance over five
years or 75,000 km. This was worked out on the list prices
of the vehicles, as if bought in cash. If purchased on the
never-never, this would push up the weekly costs even
further, as diesel options are more expensive than petrol
engines.
Of the six diesel hatches compared in the RACV Running Costs
Survey, only one was actually cheaper than the petrol
version over five years or 75,000 km. This was the Hyundai
i30 and the diesel was cheaper by just B. 16 a week (B. 840
for the year). And that is only if you kept it five years!
And of course, you can’t buy one here.
There were some savings by the time you come to larger ‘soft
roaders’ such as the Chevrolet Captiva, which gave around B.
6,500 savings every year, but the large Toyota Land Cruiser
cost nearly B. 600 a week more to run in diesel form
compared to the petrol engined variant.
So if you are contemplating diesel because of the better
fuel economy and performance of diesel cars that is fine,
but you should also think about the fact that the higher
purchase price and higher price of diesel fuel can cancel
out gains made by lower fuel consumption.
The Hybrid story is another chapter all on its own. The RACV
found that the Honda Civic Hybrid costs B. 36,000 per year
more than the petrol engined Civic and the Toyota Prius
costs B. 9,000 more annually than a Camry. If you want to be
seen to be green, then you will pay for it in folding
currency. How many people are prepared to pay to ease the
reputedly dwindling fuel stocks?
Autotrivia Quiz
Last week I asked who gave Go Karts their name? To
answer this you have to go back in history to 1956 and the
first kart was ascribed to an Art Ingels, an engineer with
the Kurtis Kraft company, the manufacturer of tube-frame
race cars, with a very successful history at the famed Indy
500 in the USA. He had a friend, Livingstone who built a
copy, but it was a Lynn Wineland, an artist and fellow racer
who did Livingstone’s advertising, who came up with the name
“Go Kart”. (It is also claimed that Wineland proposed he not
take a fee for his ad work, but earn a $2 royalty from every
unit sold. Sales were so strong his royalties bought him a
house.)
So to this week. I mentioned electric cars this week, so
which vehicle was the first to exceed 100 kph? I want the
name and driver!
For the Automania FREE beer this week, be the first correct
answer to email [email protected]
Good luck!
For economy, forget
hybrids, forget diesel, think electric
A report has come in regarding the University of
South Australia which has built an electric vehicle that
costs roughly 30 THB to travel 100 km. This is not a
futurology project, but is currently running to demonstrate
the viability of electric cars, even with today’s far from
the ultimate battery technology.
TREV
The University of South Australia’s Two-seater Renewable
Energy Vehicle (called TREV) also uses less than a fifth of
the energy of a conventional car and is designed for a
future without petrol.
“Electricity costs about 18 cents per kilowatt hour,” said
Dr Peter Pudney, a senior research fellow at the Institute
for Sustainable Systems and Technologies at UniSA. “The cost
of recharging TREV is 1.1 cents per kilometer. It makes
petrol look silly.”
To keep the need for off-road recharging to a minimum,
TREV’s batteries can be recharged with energy from renewable
sources, mainly solar and wind. The prototype is fit for
commuter use and has an ultra-light body and 150 kilometer
driving range. This is more than adequate for the average
commuter. TREV can also be plugged in and recharged from the
domestic grid, which takes up to four hours.
I have been predicting for some time that the technology
swing is towards electric propulsion. Go to any world motor
show and the mainstream manufacturers will have an
all-electric project car on display. Some using fuel cell
production of electricity, others using rechargeable
batteries making the vehicle a plug-in.
BMW chairman Norbert Reithofer said recently, “Later this
year, we will decide about building an electric car,” he
said. “Modern lithium-ion batteries would allow for the
combination of an electric drive-train and sheer driving
pleasure.”
He is correct. Look at your mobile phone which originally
used batteries that had to be carried in a small suitcase
and you had to have gone to Thor’s gymnasium to be strong
enough to carry it. Now the entire phone fits in your
pocket.
Power to weight is all-important to allow the use of battery
power, and TREV weighs 300 kilograms, which Dr Pudney says
avoids the trap of conventional car manufacture, although
the lighter batteries restrict the driving range.
For TREVs to be able to run on Australian roads will need
new legislation. Like the Indian electric car REVA, which
could not be sold in Australia because it did not meet
safety regulations, TREV cannot be registered for road use.
Dr Pudney wants that changed. “You are allowed to drive
little scooters that travel along at 40 km/h, so there are
some conflicts about what we allow on the road,” he said.
Perhaps he should bring it out to Thailand!
Natter Nosh and Noggin
The monthly car enthusiasts meeting will be at
Jameson’s Irish Pub on Soi AR next to the Nova Park
development. The car (and bike) enthusiasts meet on the
second Monday of the month, so this time it is Monday (July
14) at Jameson’s at 7 p.m. This is a totally informal
meeting of like minded souls to discuss their pet motoring
(and motorcycling) loves and hates. Many interesting debates
come from these evenings, including quite a few topics for
the Autotrivia quiz. Come along and meet guys who have a
common interest in cars and bikes.
